Ever heard of pacing? Ever understood the need to control the flow of gameplay so as not to burn the player out? The usefulness of integrating exposition/dialogue into gameplay without cutaways?
The most galling thing about this whole topic is the offensive levels of ignorance shown about the art of game design. And a frankly moronic obsessions with doing a thing because you can *ALWAYS*, and not only when it suits what's needed situationally.
Ignorance isn't nearly as galling as being knowledgeable... and then using said knowledge to portray a false narrative. You may be a developer with all the experience in the world, just as I may have absolutely none. That being said, you're absolutely full of it. You think just because you're a developer, that you can spin and twist your way through a narrative and nobody will be the wiser?
I covered this point in my post. Internal review will dictate whether to proceed or not. This is evident based on Playstation studios' product being a mixture of PS5 only and PS4/PS5 versions.
The plain fact is that if they could profitably do PS4 versions of Demons' Souls and Returnal, why wouldn't they? Its about opportunity cost, timescaling, and potential return on investment as to which why they'll go.
Anything is possible. It just comes at varying levels of risk and expense. Even if a variant build was farmed out to an external party everyone involved will have shared access to code and data repositories, with the lead SKU dev-team contributing to the master branch and the sub SKU teams deriving their stuff from that. Lead remains lead.
Is it more work? Of course. But that's only an issue if there's a lot of pressure to deliver a certain day/date. Give me a well-run multiplatform project over a single-SKU clusterfuck of strategic-steering mismanagement and creative vacillation any day of the week.
The specific issue with the Xbox scenario is the shared GDK feeding into 5 distinct variant profiles all bound together via the whole smart-delivery mechanism. Doubly so as the two Series SKU's being basically the same in terms of hardware feature-set but at different configurations in terms of memory and bandwidth. That leaves zero wiggle-room for diversification in approach between the Series SKU's because they basically are the same, just one is weaker than the other.
There is no comparable restriction on the Playstation side. You either spec for PS4 family and go up to PS5, or vice-versa. With clear distinctions in hardware and user interface featureset intrinsic to the implementation.
In this post you attempt to explain Sony's reasoning for doing a crossgen game. You ultimately pass it off as being a risk/reward scenario for each situation. Sounds good to me. However, you then go to explain in detail as to why that doesn't pertain to Xbox.
The Xbox strategy is all about uniformity of experience. The idea being something like you buy Forza and play it on your 65" big tv with your Series X, but when your partner needs screen-time you can simply switch to your office setup with a 1440p monitor attached to a Series S and continue where you left off.
Great idea, nothing wrong with it. But it demands that every SKU is exactly the same in terms of content, achievements and progression. So from a basic design perspective hands are tied, however that shouldn't preclude the higher spec SKU from employing techniques uniquely suited to its hardware to maximize benefit. For instance, PS4 Pro having special provision for checkerboarding in hardware giving some impetus for additional work on the renderer end. And if they are looking into the engine to provision support for that, they might find time to add other small tweaks.
Series X versus S doesn't have this as far as I know. The uniformity goes down to API/hardware level, meaning that the only meaningful difference between the two SKU's is likely to be in config files and other parameters. There is no reason to do more than that.
In a situation like that, common sense dictates that if you want the best result across both SKU's you max out the low spec profile, as that's the likely candidate for critical fails in terms of function and performance, then see what resources you have left over on the upper profile and just tweak up the config parameters higher.
This is the argument for why S "holds back" X. There's nothing whatsoever to be gained from diversifying the builds in terms of production efficiency, and a hell of a lot of potential issues to be solved or circumvented if you do.
That you also have to OG One, One S, and One X, and PC (at its multifarious specs and steppings) to deal with on top of that, from the same GDK.... fucking hell! I think this should make it evident why devs were less than stoked about this state of affairs.
In one of the most elaborate spins I've seen in quite some time... You twist and weave your way through a narrative that boils down to "Xbox Series S will hold back current gen, and the Series X", while simultaneously claiming that "PS4 won't hold back current gen games for PS5". It's also worth mentioning that in this post you admit to having relatively no experience with the Xbox Series S or X, or I'd assume you'd know which features it had or didn't have.
You are assuming the Xbox model which demands cross-save and cross-progression as mandatory. PS4 to PS5 does not require this.
In actuality, the reverse is true. PS5 must allow PS4 SKU's to run in native PS4 modes on PS5.
Despite just previously admitting "Series X versus S doesn't have this as far as I know." you then proceed to accuse others of assuming what Xbox does or doesn't do. While doubling down on your assertion that hardware specs matter when it comes to Xbox, but doesn't when it concerns Playstation.
I understand. But what needs to be factored in is that like any constraint, if you design intelligently you can work around it and even use it to your advantage.
For example, setting up a tunnel with a blind corner is not only a good way to hide heavy asset switching, but it allows you to do a more impactful reveal of a new scene or vista as its a surprise. A great example of this is in Dark Souls 3 where you exit from the catacombs out to the snowy city.
As I stressed before, just because you can, doesn't mean you should always. Punctuation is important in writing understandable sentences, and the sames goes for the visual grammar of storytelling in a game.
I think the key thing that a lot of people missed about Cerny's presentation was that it was a repurposed GDC address. It was intended for industry professionals who are as concerned with process as much as (if not more than) result. As a gamer you might be irked by a slow transition, but trust me, its nothing compared with having to put up with them dozens of times over a working day as you are iterating and testing the thing!
Once given a clear and precise example in which development would indeed be held back under the current situation on even PS4/PS5. You completely switch gears and dismiss the use of tunnels, elevators, etc... as necessary areas needed to allow the next level/area to load. And instead portray them as being crucial for the storytelling and even go so far as to say it can be an advantage. Especially as it pertains to the "grammar" of storytelling in a game. To reassure the reader (who's likely got a raised eyebrow at this point) that you're not completely full of shit. You make sure to reassert that they're simply "as a gamer", while you're the "industry professional", and to simply "trust me".
Its still a fallacious argument where factoring in more resources at the outset must produce a better end result than one that receives the benefit of the same resources later on in development.
You cannot treat a hypothetical, as a certainty. Especially not with game-dev.
Not every game need, nor should, be built like Rift Apart. Its entirely possible for an enhanced version of high-quality PS4 game to be better than one built exclusively for PS5.
People need to get past this superficial belief that the technology used to create the illusion and the entertainment is the significant element.
Its not that at all, its simply about having a clear vision and executing on it as flawlessly as humanly possible.
Seemingly baffled as to why people aren't just buying into your obvious lack of logic. You claim that a hypothetical can't be treated as certainty. Despite you having done exactly that throughout the thread when you said "Series X versus S doesn't have this as far as I know", and then proceeding to assume that despite admittedly not knowing.
Yes. Because all the handwringing is based on the presupposition that somehow you're missing out. Which as I've explained has no basis whatsoever in reality.
No, you're not informed! Not in the slightestt!
Do you know what the design goals are for these unpublished games? Were you party to the design and team meetings? Have you ever worked in commercial game-dev?
I have. For over 20 years. And it doesn't work like you seem think it does. If your brief is to showcase a particular aspect of the tech you end up enslaved by it; it becomes the point of the exercise not a thing that (rightfully) facilitates and enriches the creative goals of the project.
Like what exactly? The only thing intrinsic to Rift Apart's design is the ability to near seamlessly transition between locations via the titular rifts. You honestly think that shoehorning that into melee combat orientated titles like GoW would be more than a shallow gimmick? Really? Same deal with Horizon. Do you want Aloy to fight robot dinosaurs in a primitive post apocalyptic dystopia or do you want her to be zapping between dimensions willy-nilly?
Have you even thought this through?
Like I said earlier. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. That line of thinking was what led to motion controls getting wedged clumsily into a lot of games that gained nothing from them during the PS360/Wii era!
Like I said, starting out with a brief or an intent to showcase a particular piece of tech is as often a detriment to the end result as a boon. Rift Apart is a great showcase, but its built around it, and happens to be a pretty natural fit for the property. This is not true for every game.
Actually they don't. There's a difference between a PS4 game provisioned with a runtime profile for forwards compatibility and a PS5 version of a PS4 game. There is no equivalent to smart delivery on Playstation. You can have a PS4 and PS5 version installed at the same time. If they wanted to add or change stuff, they could do. That they don't is more about optics and perception than anything else.
What, like the underwater stuff in Horizon: Forbidden West. You think you're getting that level of texture detail and scene density on PS4? Hmmm....
Anyone who's worked in game-dev knows that design has barely changed in two decades. Presentation and scope have improved greatly, but the fundamentals.... not so much. The idea that faster CPU's and more capable GPU's is going to radically change every game going forwards is laughable.
I mean for all the yak about what Rift Apart is doing, Portal explored much the same ground back in 2007. The PS5 allows for a much visually richer implementation, but conceptually I don't see anything that's too dissimilar.
And what I'm saying is don't mistake a tool for the entirety of the construction.
Tools are great, they can allow you to do stuff faster and better than you can with your bare hands alone. But the thought process guiding those hands is what's important, and you simply cannot CANNOT blindly assume that the presence of a tool is the defining factor.
This is what I see being expressed and what I'm objecting to. Its like saying well PSVR exists so lets make everything be in VR or have a VR mode. FUCKING NO!
Its not to deny there are potential benefits, its just the assumption of inferiority that annoys the piss out of me. Its offensively stupid and shallow-minded.
This lengthy tirade fails on several fronts. Are you informed in the slightest? Do you know what the design goals are for these unpublished games? Were you party to the design and team meetings? Oh, I see that you state you have. Or were you just referring to the 20 years in game dev in an attempt to slyly pass yourself off as involved with these games?
Does anyone think the rift feature should be forced fit into GoW? No, but many would like a more seamless game without loading screens, QTE's, tunnels, etc... which is exactly what those devs stated they would like to achieve and tried as much as possible to do on their last one.
Do people want Aloy zapping between dimensions all willy-nilly? Of course not, but being able to perhaps ride one of the flying robot dinosaurs would be nice. Which was apparently a thing but...
The overarching goal is to create entertainment.
Entertainment is created through illusion.
Illusion can be facilitated by technique or technology.
The bedrock is of course labour.
Technology can expedite labour, but it also can become a detriment when its exploitation becomes a distraction from the mission goal or an end in its own right.
In short its a tool, the use of which can be both additive or subtractive to the quality of the final product.
The best tech does not ensure the best end result, so fixating on it is an error. Especially when in terms of scope, scale, and ambition the biggest last-gen games were already pushing the limits in terms of labour and economics.
As I've said in the past, the PS5 I/O stack's efficiency does open new doors in terms of game construction and flow, it can and should have lasting impact and benefits. However that isn't to say that it renders all previous design paradigms and methodologies redundant or obsolete, or that it absolutely has to be employed by every title going forwards.
You might be a developer, but honestly I find your entire premise falls incredibly short of being convincing. Over the years many industry developers have chimed in on similar topics. Typically they'll give an explanation as to how a process or feature works. What they don't typically do is get so emotionally bent out of shape as to explain the entire process of game design as well as which versions get chosen. Go from explaining how the risk/investment are calculated, to outsourcing, to how checkerboard rendering features help PS, to guessing as to how Xbox Series compatibility works, to explaining why features don't make sense, and to eventually outright calling people's use of logic "offensively stupid, and shallow minded."
Clear
- it is a waste of time trying to tell these armchair developers how games are designed. They'll never believe reality because they want to stay fixated with their platform of choice. Always Sony.. never Xbox, never Nintendo, never PC. I've informed the mods of my concern.
I'm not going to speak about this because
Clear
is a developer and whatever he tells you is what I would tell you.
You made some reasonable posts in this thread earlier, but I've seen you get dragged through the mud here plenty of times due to your own behavior. Your obvious ass-kissing to him simply because you realized he's a developer is disappointing. It only further diminishes what little reputation you had left.
Sorry if I offend anyone, but I find it in extremely bad taste to increasingly attempt to gain influence or authority in a thread for the simple goal to be to engage in console warring. To go to such extreme lengths to perpetuate a myth where two very similar consoles differ wildly when it comes to lower spec hardware holding back higher spec is pathetic.
smart marketing…
